Deseret Industries Cuts Hours Ahead Of Obamacare Implementation

[bluebell]

My issue is that it appears that DI has taken the least imaginative way out, one with the most impact on those who can afford it least. Do we know if DI has looked at reducing salaries and/or salaried positions? Do we know if they've considered other ways to reduce expenditure or waste? Do we know if they've tried unconventional means such as public appeals for support? I am not opposed to business or profit per se, I am opposed to attitudes that place workers low on the rung of priorities. It is particularly unbecoming in a company that tries to implement some of the ideals of Zion.

If we don't know any of answers to those questions (and it doesn't appear that we do), then is it fair to assume the worst of them?

[Duncan]

I don't believe it's sustainable now. Universal healthcare is based on debt funding. Tha'ts not practical, nor moral as per LDS financial teachings. If the US could no longer take in the Candian overflow, I think the Canadian healthcare system will continue but will definitely get hurt by that.

are you saying that because Blackstrap and I live in Canada we aren't moral according to the teachings of the Church? are we all doomed now?

[Judd]

I know a few people in med school now, I know they'll all get jobs but how much they make I don't know. The problem is if you make say 100k starting off in say Edmonton or you can make doing the same thing in Idaho at 200k it's a no brainer where you choose to live. Now I think they are tightening up on regulations, like you can move to the States but you need to do x amount of time here and there is such a need, especially for rural medicine. That's true, it's tough everywhere when money is involved

You'd have to complete a US residency training program, which is generally as long (sans primary care specialties), if not longer than, medical school.

[volgadon]

If we don't know any of answers to those questions (and it doesn't appear that we do), then is it fair to assume the worst of them?

As far as public appeals go, we can safely say that there were none. While I'm not expecting exact figures on expenditure/waste, I think that we can also conclude that salaries weren't lowered, it would have been an amazing PR move.

[volgadon]

are you saying that because Blackstrap and I live in Canada we aren't moral according to the teachings of the Church? are we all doomed now?

Yes, of course.

[ERayR]

My issue is that it appears that DI has taken the least imaginative way out, one with the most impact on those who can afford it least. Do we know if DI has looked at reducing salaries and/or salaried positions? Do we know if they've considered other ways to reduce expenditure or waste? Do we know if they've tried unconventional means such as public appeals for support? I am not opposed to business or profit per se, I am opposed to attitudes that place workers low on the rung of priorities. It is particularly unbecoming in a company that tries to implement some of the ideals of Zion.

Reducing wages is not an option due to minimum wage laws. Salaried employees are few and salaries are not on the high end. They are in the business of recycling other peoples waste not to be confused with garbage. If public appeals were used they would be in direct competition for dwindling public charitable giving. No I believe this can be laid directly at the feet of an over reaching government.

[Judd]

With regard to healthcare, people always pay for it. It's the same when you hear about people talking about how great their health plan is that they "don't pay" for things like their $15 copay or their $4/month prescription from Walmart. Of course they pay for it, in a huge premium (which is much higher than paying the copays and $4/month, but for whatever reason people are more comfortably mentally forking our $400/month in premiums than paying for copays and prescriptions here and there.

A non-political scenario:

Last year the NBA was in a lockout due to a rift between owners and players. The whole time all coverage was regarding players vs. owners and who was in the right. This was a blatant false dichotomy that nobody ever called them on. The fans received no representation and ultimate it was fans who were being screwed. If players make more money or get a larger slice of the pie from the owners, the owners simply pass the expense of that onto the consumer in the form of higher ticket prices, more expensive sports packages, etc. The bottom line I that the money ultimately comes from somewhere. Nothing is ever free.

[Judd]

DI is not an industry where you have a bunch of fat cats making large salaries working as higher ups.

[volgadon]

Reducing wages is not an option due to minimum wage laws. Salaried employees are few and salaries are not on the high end. They are in the business of recycling other peoples waste not to be confused with garbage. If public appeals were used they would be in direct competition for dwindling public charitable giving. No I believe this can be laid directly at the feet of an over reaching government.

I did not say reduce wages. Salaries are still far higher than minimum wage, and even if public appeals garner little, it would be evidence of their trying which we haven't seen here.

[volgadon]

DI is not an industry where you have a bunch of fat cats making large salaries working as higher ups.

Never said they were, however, they still make much more than minimum wage.

[Mark Beesley]

Considering what Deseret Industries is, and its mission, I would not have been opposed to having the Church subsidize it in order to afford the employees basic heath coverage. I imagine the salaried employees receive heath coverage. But, as Volgadon points, out, it is always the little guy that gets stepped on first.

[thesometimesaint]

If it's employees are getting less than 30 hours a week the topic of the OP shouldn't be an issue, as mandatory health coverage doesn't kick in under obamacare unless the employee is working 30 hours a week or more.

According to the OP DI is lowering the working hours of its trainees(virtual all DI employees) making their actual 6 month income substantially lower. Try living on less than minimum wage for 6 months and tell me how you felt. They still qualify for Medicaid, but with several states refusing to expand it. Utah has yet to decide, leans towards not expanding it, but must decide before Jan 1, 2014. The reality of the situation is that more people will die, more families will go bankrupt, and if they get care at all it will be at the highest price possible, the ER of the hospital. Where the general public will pick of the cost. EVERY company like Walmart and now DI that pays minimum wages is being subsidized by the general public. At least every slave could expect food, shelter, clothing, and medical care albeit the crappiest around. With the Walmart and now DI model their employees don't even get that.

[bluebell]

As far as public appeals go, we can safely say that there were none. While I'm not expecting exact figures on expenditure/waste, I think that we can also conclude that salaries weren't lowered, it would have been an amazing PR move.

Depending on what those salaries are, lowering them might not be an option. I doubt anyone at DI is getting rich, but I really don't know. I admit that I'm willing to give them more of a benefit of the doubt since I know the church usually takes this stuff pretty seriously and tries to do as my h good as possible. I'm sure there is room for your less trusting opinion as well.

PR though is never good if it results in just moving the bad news/negative effects around to more people.

[Buzzard]

If it's employees are getting less than 30 hours a week the topic of the OP shouldn't be an issue, as mandatory health coverage doesn't kick in under Obamacare unless the employee is working 30 hours a week or more.

I believe that some workers were working over 30 hours a week if hours were available under the stores payroll budget, but due to the Obamacare mandate, it is now policy that no hourly employees work more than 30 hours a week. BTW, this policy is being implemented by employers large and small, public, private, and non-profit. All together now: "Unintended Consequences!"

[bluebell]

According to the OP DI is lowering the working hours of its trainees(virtual all DI employees) making their actual 6 month income substantially lower. Try living on less than minimum wage for 6 months and tell me how you felt. They still qualify for Medicaid, but with several states refusing to expand it. Utah has yet to decide, leans towards not expanding it, but must decide before Jan 1, 2014. The reality of the situation is that more people will die, more families will go bankrupt, and if they get care at all it will be at the highest price possible, the ER of the hospital. Where the general public will pick of the cost. EVERY company like Walmart and now DI that pays minimum wages is being subsidized by the general public. At least every slave could expect food, shelter, clothing, and medical care albeit the crappiest around. With the Walmart and now DI model their employees don't even get that.

If they are working less than 30 hours a weeks already, DI wouldn't need to lower anyone's hours to keep from payi g health care, they won't be eligible at their current hourly amount anyway.

That's what doesn't make sense between the OP and your posts. The information seems contradictory.

Either the employees are working less than 30 hours right now as you claim, or they are going to have their hours cut so DI won't have to pay for their health care. Both can't be correct.

[thesometimesaint]

Depending on what those salaries are, lowering them might not be an option. I doubt anyone at DI is getting rich, but I really don't know. I admit that I'm willing to give them more of a benefit of the doubt since I know the church usually takes this stuff pretty seriously and tries to do as my h good as possible. I'm sure there is room for your less trusting opinion as well.

PR though is never good if it results in just moving the bad news/negative effects around to more people.

For virtually all it is minimum wage. So legally reducing it directly becomes problematic. But there is nothing illegal about reducing the total hours so that the effective rate is reduced. It's like claiming you pay your employees a million dollars. But leave out that they'd have to work a million hours to get that.

The managers of you local DI are not rich, their not paid badly, either. More like upper middle class in my area.

I'm natural suspicious of people whom skirt the law. It's not that big of a step from skirting to outright breaking it.

[blackstrap]

Looks like it's time to turn DI into a fully volunteer program similar to the Church cleaning system. Look at all the service hours the youth could accumulate . Nobody would need to be paid and .... wait, I just remembered how much fun it is to get consistent volunteers. Back to the drawing board.

[ERayR]

Looks like it's time to turn DI into a fully volunteer program similar to the Church cleaning system. Look at all the service hours the youth could accumulate . Nobody would need to be paid and .... wait, I just remembered how much fun it is to get consistent volunteers. Back to the drawing board.

That would defeat its purpose. It is as stated a program to train and help people develop marketable skills so they can find employment elsewhere.

[thesometimesaint]

If they are working less than 30 hours a weeks already, DI wouldn't need to lower anyone's hours to keep from payi g health care, they won't be eligible at their current hourly amount anyway.

That's what doesn't make sense between the OP and your posts. The information seems contradictory.

Either the employees are working less than 30 hours right now as you claim, or they are going to have their hours cut so DI won't have to pay for their health care. Both can't be correct.

As a training program DI, and any other company, doesn't have to employ those people for 30+ hours per week. This has two effects it lowers the cost of employees, and it transfers those costs to the general public. People still have to have a place to live, clothes on their backs, food in their stomachs, and reasonable health care. If they are working 30- hours per week they'd still qualify for at least some governmental assistance, but that won't cost the employee directly out of his/her paycheck. Private health care is a defined delayed benefit, and is part of your negotiated pay. As every one of us will at sometime get sick and need the help of a doctor. It is usually less delayed than say retirement. What the ACA does is transfer that cost of employees with companies with less than 30+ hours per week employees from the employer to the employee(whom will get subsidized). Assuming they live in a state that will expand their Medicaid rolls. Making it financially advantageous to reduce employee hours.

Is that legal to do? Yes, but I find it highly immoral.

Personally I'd have preferred the decoupling of insurance from employment.

[ERayR]

As a training program DI, and any other company, doesn't have to employ those people for 30+ hours per week. This has two effects it lowers the cost of employees, and it transfers those costs to the general public. People still have to have a place to live, clothes on their backs, food in their stomachs, and reasonable health care. If they are working 30- hours per week they'd still qualify for at least some governmental assistance, but that won't cost the employee directly out of his/her paycheck. Private health care is a defined delayed benefit, and is part of your negotiated pay. As every one of us will at sometime get sick and need the help of a doctor. It is usually less delayed than say retirement. What the ACA does is transfer that cost of employees with companies with less than 30+ hours per week employees from the employer to the employee(whom will get subsidized). Assuming they live in a state that will expand their Medicaid rolls. Making it financially advantageous to reduce employee hours.

Is that legal to do? Yes, but I find it highly immoral.

Personally I'd have preferred the decoupling of insurance from employment.

Personally I'd have preferred the decoupling of insurance from employment.government

[thesometimesaint]

Personally I'd have preferred the decoupling of insurance from employment.government

We've already tried that. It didn't work out too well. Prior to the ACA try to buy an individual plan with healthcare for your pregnant wife, or your child with a preexisting condition.

[Darren10]

My issue is that it appears that DI has taken the least imaginative way out, one with the most impact on those who can afford it least. Do we know if DI has looked at reducing salaries and/or salaried positions? Do we know if they've considered other ways to reduce expenditure or waste? Do we know if they've tried unconventional means such as public appeals for support? I am not opposed to business or profit per se, I am opposed to attitudes that place workers low on the rung of priorities. It is particularly unbecoming in a company that tries to implement some of the ideals of Zion.

Would increasing their hours and wages be more imaginative? If you were the CEO of DI, would you cut your own salary to pay for the extra cost of Obamacare? If so than if you think that'll have no affect on you or others if you insisdt that other executives do the same than I'd say that you're imagination is questionable, not DI management.

Asa far as cutting waste, sure, they may have done that or may not have. Cutting waste, though, is typically not going to cover a hueg cost increase under Obamacare. A local radio host who owns and runs the restaurant Taste of Texas says he's going to have to pay an extra $120,000 per year to cover Obamacare mandates. That means 1) it'll be more difficult to give anyone a raise 2) it'll be more difficult to hire extra personel 3) the cost of their food may raise (creating inflation when applied to all busiensses across the country) 4) it'll be more difficult to offer bonuses as incentives and so forth.

I am opposed to attitudes that place workers low on the rung of priorities.

Workers take the least amounts of risk in running a business. The reward for taking risks is the financial result of your efforts. Cut off the rewards and you'll reduce risk takers. Reduce risk takers and you'll reduce businesses and who'll benefit for that? Typically speaking, those who own busiensses care very much for their workers and do strive to make their lives as least uncomfortable as possible.

Do we know if they've tried unconventional means such as public appeals for support?

I've on idea what you mean by this.

It is particularly unbecoming in a company that tries to implement some of the ideals of Zion.

Including workers who get paid for their services? Its a business, period.

[Darren10]

DI is not an industry where you have a bunch of fat cats making large salaries working as higher ups.

That's my impression though I really do not know for sure.

[Darren10]

I did not say reduce wages. Salaries are still far higher than minimum wage, and even if public appeals garner little, it would be evidence of their trying which we haven't seen here.

Reducing salraies is more idealistic to Zion than reducing worker's wages? Huh?

[Darren10]

well, I have heard his treatment, if done in the States, would have been well over a million big ones and no one in my ward has that kinda scratch. I would give if I had it but I don't

Of course your ward most likely not raise a million dollars but the spirit of donating can and will. By having goverment taking care of everyone, the spirit of donating is hurt directly. That, in my opinion, hurts charity which in turn hurts everyone.

Also, if the patient were in direct payment with the doctor / hospital, you bet the doctors / hospital will be up to negotiate a price. As it stands today, people are so unaccustomed to seing their hospital bill that they don't even think of this possibility.